GOLDMAN SACHS BANS EMPLOYEES FROM BETTING ON PREDICTION MARKETS

[darewaller]

I did not know that gambling could be banned from a companies rules, that doesn't feel like it's legal. If anything can be banned, by a company, and threat is being fired, then they have the right to ban anything. Just because it is seen as unethical, or dangerous, or whatever, then I am not sure if they have the right to do that.

While I understand that a worker there may have access to information, how do you make sure that they do not gamble on it? I do not think that it's public info that I gamble for example.

[Akbarkoe]

I did not know that gambling could be banned from a companies rules, that doesn't feel like it's legal. If anything can be banned, by a company, and threat is being fired, then they have the right to ban anything. Just because it is seen as unethical, or dangerous, or whatever, then I am not sure if they have the right to do that.

While I understand that a worker there may have access to information, how do you make sure that they do not gamble on it? I do not think that it's public info that I gamble for example.

There may be some kind of regulation that allows the company to discipline employees, therefore any rule can be set as long as it does not conflict with the law, while having a fairly logical reason and can be held accountable, it can be done by the company to discipline employees who work in the company, it's like every company has its own culture in maintaining its employees.
This is not independent of the employee's own consent to provide access to his account mutation, although in general this violates privacy but something like this can be tried, or even though there is no official audit to ensure, most importantly when there is no report that his employee made a bet on the prediction market he will remain safe, and if there is a direct report on the decisive action may even be directly fired.

[Hatchy]

The good thing here is that the company only limits its workers from the type of events they can stake on but does not entirely stop them from betting, which is the same thing as respecting the employees' rights at the same time as protecting the company from anything that could result in conflict.

This is actually a good approach because the prediction market these days are being manipulated by insiders to their favor. These people have first hand access to information and could even be selling it out to people to make profits for a cut in return. I was also thinking about this before is saw your post. What if such persons were not the ones who placed the bet themselves, they simply would have to give the information to a distant friend or family member who would use his betting accounts to place the best and win. Unfortunately, many people would still get away with such things as not all might be caught on the act. But if most companies could adopt such methods I'm very sure it would help reduce how the prediction markets is being manipulated to some extent..

[o48o]

-cut-
The good thing here is that the company only limits its workers from the type of events they can stake on but does not entirely stop them from betting, which is the same thing as respecting the employees' rights at the same time as protecting the company from anything that could result in conflict.

It's a way to wash their hands from any investigations that might be happening. If company is providing them equipment that could be helpful to determine the outcome, or insider knowledge, they can be seen as enabling people to make money with insider information.

If company however gives a clear signal that this isn't allowed, it's a kind of legal disclaimer, even if it's just a symbolic gesture.

[X-ray]

This should be a recall for the US to regulate what party that can be involved in betting on prediction market. It's good Goldman Sachs disallowed their employees to be involved in prediction market, but what about the other companies?

All of employees in the big companies must be banned from their involvement in prediction market because they know the sensitive data that can give advantage in predicting an event. I hope US govt and congress aware of it.

[tread93]

This approach taken by Goldman should also be emulated by other big organisations which know that information from their organisations can be used by their employees, like the recent case of a Google employee making $1.2m from a prediction market for having access to information which is not yet public; at least it will limit the involvement of employees from taking advantage of the information they have in such situations.

Goldman Sachs has updated its personal trading policy to ban employees from wagering on prediction market contracts, according to Bloomberg. Employees at Goldman Sachs are now prohibited from placing prediction market bets on event contracts involving specific companies, electoral outcomes, financial market performance, macroeconomic data, and geopolitics, after the bank revised its personal trading rules, Bloomberg reports. Sports and entertainment bets remain permitted under the policy.

The good thing here is that the company only limits its workers from the type of events they can stake on but does not entirely stop them from betting, which is the same thing as respecting the employees' rights at the same time as protecting the company from anything that could result in conflict.

Idk, I kind of agree with this but I know that if I worked for them I would be pissed. People in the US government get insider trading tips and up until this point nobody has really seen many consequences if they know the right people. Did the guy from google get in trouble? I know that a lot of folks who work in financial advisory aren't allowed to invest in certain markets and I just have to say that I think that is complete and total horse shit. Like they can invest for other people and make them a ton of money but not themselves? I hate that crap. Just like when I used to be full time into coins and my ex boss barred me from selling any coins because he was a complete and total control freak dip shit. A lot of companies do this, I am majorly against it. Also if you have that kind of intel you should use discretion on your bets so you don't get caught, dumbasses lol.

[Hispo]

It sounds like a conservative step, if we keep in mind there have already been some examples of people abusing their position to do some inside trading on Polymarket.
This is the kind of policy I would expect to become mainstream within other organizations which also deal with privileged information within the United States and also within the European Union.

Betting markets like Kalshi and Polymarket seem to be getting more and more stigmatized as times goes on.

I bet there are already markets out there which allow people to bet on the death of important people, as there has been much speculation on the death of Mitch McConnell and other lawmakers from the USA.

[BRINIRHA]

This is only done to minimize so as not to make predictions in some things that are eccentric and have an interest so that I think it becomes a very natural thing in the end.

This can be a policy that is actually quite good because their employees can still bet but the integrity of the company is still maintained so that unexpected things do not happen including cases that have been done by google employees some time ago.
This regulation is good because although some may think this is excessive but for me it is a smart move, Goldman Sachs knows they will not be able to limit their employees not to gamble but at least they can be responsible without compromising the integrity of the company to bet on controversial things.

[Somto9Light]

It's a way to wash their hands from any investigations that might be happening. If company is providing them equipment that could be helpful to determine the outcome, or insider knowledge, they can be seen as enabling people to make money with insider information.

If company however gives a clear signal that this isn't allowed, it's a kind of legal disclaimer, even if it's just a symbolic gesture.

So basically that’s nothing more but some kind of a formal statement to avoid being investigated, and that staffs could still probably be involved in betting on the prediction market, but on different assets that they could possibly not have any insider information or chancing of cheating.

Well this could actually be possible, because even if it’s actually true, there’ll still be people who’ll still bet on the prediction market   

[bakasabo]

It was always a question for me why would a company interfere in personal life. Why cant employee go home, watch financial news, think about chances and make prediction that market will go up or down ? A bigger question, how would a company find out that their employees are placing predictions? Are they stalking their employees? Can a bet be a reflection of bettors own opinion, experience, free choice? Turns out not, because it is prohibited.

I think I can understand the point of view of the company. They work in an environment where they are privy to certain information. Using that privilege to make bets is not in favour of the company. Some of the information may even be the client's information, which should be kept within the company. It doesn't make sense to use a client's information to make money in a prediction market.

In a setting like this, it's not like they will be monitoring the employees' every move; it's more a case of "whoever is caught will be made an example of".
They did not make an inhumane law, so I don't see anything wrong with it. They have the right to make certain rules that guide their business. The employees and public don't have to like it, but if they feel it would make their business run better, and it's not against the law or inhumane, then it's their right.

I have pretty childish example then. How can you tell if someone prediction was made based on some private information or it was just a random pick? If employee earn from 100/100 made predictions, then it will look suspicious. But if they make several predictions a week, and they choose simple bets like whether market go up or down (not specifying how deep or on what day), then will it look like a suspicious prediction?

[Alpha Marine]

I have pretty childish example then. How can you tell if someone prediction was made based on some private information or it was just a random pick? If employee earn from 100/100 made predictions, then it will look suspicious. But if they make several predictions a week, and they choose simple bets like whether market go up or down (not specifying how deep or on what day), then will it look like a suspicious prediction?

There are certain predictions that feel too specific. Either the timing or the information shouldn't be public. They are a multi-billion-dollar corporation, so they will definitely have the resources to investigate something like that. They don't have to be looking out for the predictions all the time, but there may be some that will cross their radar.
The US special forces soldiers who were sued for making predictions on the arrest of the Venezuelan president, I don't think the US government or the US military were constantly watching them to see if they were gambling, but that particular bet caught their attention, and they looked into it.
I guess what they (the company) would be looking out for are predictions that are inside information. They are not looking at all kinds of predictions, like bitcoin prices or the winner of a match. It is when they have started investigating you that they would look at all these other bets.

[suzanne5223]

I have pretty childish example then. How can you tell if someone prediction was made based on some private information or it was just a random pick? If employee earn from 100/100 made predictions, then it will look suspicious. But if they make several predictions a week, and they choose simple bets like whether market go up or down (not specifying how deep or on what day), then will it look like a suspicious prediction?

There are certain predictions that feel too specific. Either the timing or the information shouldn't be public. They are a multi-billion-dollar corporation, so they will definitely have the resources to investigate something like that. They don't have to be looking out for the predictions all the time, but there may be some that will cross their radar.
The US special forces soldiers who were sued for making predictions on the arrest of the Venezuelan president, I don't think the US government or the US military were constantly watching them to see if they were gambling, but that particular bet caught their attention, and they looked into it.
I guess what they (the company) would be looking out for are predictions that are inside information. They are not looking at all kinds of predictions, like bitcoin prices or the winner of a match. It is when they have started investigating you that they would look at all these other bets.

I agree with you that some prediction betting events are too obvious due to the timing it happens because the information is something that can't be known by an ordinary person. Another one of the dead of the previous Iranian President.
If we look into the several manipulation nd inside information used to gamble on the prediction mrket i believe Goldman Sachs made the right decision by restricting its employees from betting on the prediction market to avoid conflicts of interest, insider trading risks, and other insider issues.

[dansus021]

The exploding popularity of decentralized event contract platforms has created a massive compliance blind spot, and Goldman Sachs’ policy update is the first major defensive wall built by Wall Street to address it.  Google "AlphaRaccoon" case perfectly highlights why companies are panicking. The absolute boundary between a clever trade and federal fraud has been completely blurred by the accessibility of prediction markets. 

this is the definitive corporate wake-up call of the year. The traditional 'insider trading' compliance models built for stocks are completely obsolete in a world dominated by prediction markets. By accessing confidential search analytics, he was able to systematically bet over $2.75 million on Polymarket event contracts